Important: EU law to limit freedom of photography on the way

[1982chris911]

I know that this is no Canon Rumor, but it is very important and might affect nearly all amateur and professional photographers in Europe:

Please look up the petition on Change.org here:

https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography?recruiter=93818876&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-reason_msg&fb_ref=Default

and spread the word wherever possible: Your FB, your Home Pages and all your contacts to support the petition.

On 9 July 2015, the European Parliament might destroy photography.

The Freedom of taking photos in public places is under attack. Until now, in most countries in Europe you were safe to take and publish photographs that are taken from public ground – This is called Freedom of Panorama. When you were on vacation, you could take a photo from the London Eye and share it with your friends on Facebook*. If someone wanted to pay you for using this photo, that was okay as well. Both is about to change may destroy photography as we know it.

Julia Reda, member of the European Parliament, tried to bring the Freedom of Panorama to all countries of the EU, as few countries like France and Italy don’t have such law yet. In the majority of countries such as the UK, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Croatia, you’re safe to take, publish and sell photos of public buildings when taken from public grounds.

However, the current draft turned the proposal upside down. Instead of bringing the Freedom of Panorama to the few countries that don’t know such law yet, it would take it away from all those who do. With this, Street-, Travel- and Architecture-Photography would be dead as we know it. It is impossible to find out the architect of every public building in order to ask for permission before you can publish and possibly sell the photo.

I therefore call on the members of the European Parliament to

Not limit the Freedom of Panorama in any way
and instead to

Bring the Freedom of Panorama to all member states of the EU
so that the European Citizens can be assured to act within the law when taking and publishing photographs from public buildings anywhere in the European Union. This is necessary to embrace our European Culture and Art!

 

[neuroanatomist]

With respect, WTF? When I click past the rhetoric in the 'petition' that you've also pasted above, to the actual text of the EU Parliment official information (.eu website), the only reference to the Freedom of Panorama provision is:

On the “freedom of panorama” principle, such as the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings, the text cautions that the commercial use of such reproductions should require authorization from the rightholder.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer...but what that sounds like is strengthening copyright protections, which is the subject of the Parliament web page. The rights to use the reproductions (images and photographs) of public buildings for commercial use must come from the photographer (rightholder). Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

Can you provide anything to substantiate the 'petition', which appears to be a sensationalist overreaction to a flagrant misinterpretation of a legal change intended to benefit photographers?

 

[1982chris911]

Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).

You can read the whole thing here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015
and here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more

It is a very dangerous situation as this law can basically even be used to make you pay up to 100 EURO for each selfie on Facebook or any other site (if just a protected building is in the backround) if you or anyone else makes profit on these pictures the charges could be much higher.

The problem by the standard of this law is, that once your picture is on a site in the internet and there is advertisement on some place on the screen or the company uses a screenshot it is commercial. Eg. Facebook or Google or even this Forum: from there on not the entity who made the page but the photographer is the one they are after with the copyright infringement... and this would involve everything from modern architecture (all stuff done in the last 70 years) minimum and all public artwork. you can already see this in place with the night images of the Eiffel Tower where no commercial use is allowed bc. the illumination is protected.

Once this law passes the same would apply for about every mayor building in Europe and you need to contact the right holder to ask if it is allowed to publish a picture of the building (even if it is only part of the background). For a normal skyline picture of a city that would mean several hundreds of emails as you must ask this for every building or artwork which can be seen in the frame...

 

[old-pr-pix]

I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor. Ideally, Sporgon should research this and report back. The combination of his professional and photographic interests likely makes him the best person to understand the implications.

This topic was discussed on a recent Tony Northrup video where it was suggested that panorama shots would have to have buildings in the background photo shopped out if permission could not be obtained.

For years everyone has respected that selling photos of paintings was a violation, yet buildings - whose design is equally protected by copyright - were 'fair game.' One could not build a copy of a building, but taking its photograph from public spaces as part of a background panorama was allowed even for commercial purposes. Property releases were generally not necessary. This proposed action could reverse that position, perhaps even for personal use. Property releases for every building in the background would be required.

Most interesting is the lack of clear definition of commercial v. personal use. Some would consider social media - which runs ads - as converting what would usually be identified as personal use into commercial use and therefore making the photographer liable. Selfies with background buildings could be problematic then!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).

Thanks for clarifying my own misinterpretation!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor.

I do share some of that concern, still. I don't generally consider Wikipedia an authoritative source (and I'll point out that at least one of their blacked out building examples was designed by an architect that died hundreds of years ago, and their map with the statement about all the green areas turning yellow or red includes countries not part of the EU and not subject to this potential law). Citing a Tony Northrup video doesn't help the case one bit.

 

[kaswindell]

Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).

Thanks for clarifying my own misinterpretation!

My reading of that passage is that the item that cannot be used without permission of the rightholder is the reproduction (e.g. photograph or painting), but the wording is not specific enough on this point to avoid ambiguity.

 

[1982chris911]

Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).

Thanks for clarifying my own misinterpretation!

My reading of that passage is that the item that cannot be used without permission of the rightholder is the reproduction (e.g. photograph or painting), but the wording is not specific enough on this point to avoid ambiguity.

Original Text:
On the “freedom of panorama” principle, such as the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings, the text cautions that the commercial use of such reproductions should require authorization from the right holder.

see here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150615IPR66497/html/EU-copyright-reform-must-balance-rightholders’-and-users’-interests-say-MEPs

Unfortunately the right holder is the Architect or Artist (of a public Artwork). It is not what you read into.

 

[1982chris911]

I can't tell if this is a big deal or panic reaction to an Internet rumor.

I do share some of that concern, still. I don't generally consider Wikipedia an authoritative source (and I'll point out that at least one of their blacked out building examples was designed by an architect that died hundreds of years ago, and their map with the statement about all the green areas turning yellow or red includes countries not part of the EU and not subject to this potential law). Citing a Tony Northrup video doesn't help the case one bit.

Which building do you mean? the one in Warsaw ? that was rebuild after the second world war. So it is covered by the idea of the law.

Regarding the Map it says Europe and not EU (However the EU countries would change) of course Switzerland and other non EU countries (Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia) would stay the same, no matter if red or green

 

[LDS]

Well the right holder is not the photographer but the architect or artist in case of a public artwork (up until 70 years after his/her death).

It could be even worse. The right holder in some states can be simply the actual owner, in the case of a public building, the public entity owning it. And it applies to historical building as well, you may not be able to take photos for commercial use without permission - even if the architect died centuries ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Unfortunately the right holder is the Architect or Artist (of a public Artwork). It is not what you read into.

Are you certain of that?

To be clear, the 'original text' to which you refer is not the text of the parliamentary motion, but from a press release about that motion.

The actual original text in the parlimentary motion reads as follows:

46. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;

Now, I'm not sure that my original interpretation was incorrect – the above could be summarized as: commercial use of photographs/footage/images requires prior authorization from the author [of the photo/footage/image]. In other words, I can't download and use your web-posted image of an EU public landmark in my travel agency ad without your permission, then claim the fact that it's a public structure means you have no valid copyright. But as I stated, I'm not a lawyer. Are you a lawyer specializing in copyright law?

...this law can basically even be used to make you pay up to 100 EURO for each selfie on Facebook or any other site (if just a protected building is in the backround)...

Again, where is this 'pay up to 100€ for a selfie' coming from?

Which building do you mean? the one in Warsaw ? that was rebuild after the second world war. So it is covered by the idea of the law.

The Warsaw castle was built and destroyed a few times, and expanded and modified several times, too. Lots of architects involved there. Who do I email for permission to use an image of the castle? Who gets the 100€ for my selfie?

I know governments make silly laws, but what you seem to be describing is a specific intent is to create problems for an industry that accounts for ~9% of the EU's GDP. There's silly, and then there's losing-the-next-MEP-election silly.

 

[1982chris911]

Unfortunately the right holder is the Architect or Artist (of a public Artwork). It is not what you read into.

Are you certain of that?

To be clear, the 'original text' to which you refer is not the text of the parliamentary motion, but from a press release about that motion.

The actual original text in the parlimentary motion reads as follows:

46. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;

Now, I'm not sure that my original interpretation was incorrect – the above could be summarized as: commercial use of photographs/footage/images requires prior authorization from the author [of the photo/footage/image]. In other words, I can't download and use your web-posted image of an EU public landmark in my travel agency ad without your permission, then claim the fact that it's a public structure means you have no valid copyright. But as I stated, I'm not a lawyer. Are you a lawyer specializing in copyright law?

...this law can basically even be used to make you pay up to 100 EURO for each selfie on Facebook or any other site (if just a protected building is in the backround)...

Again, where is this 'pay up to 100€ for a selfie' coming from?

Which building do you mean? the one in Warsaw ? that was rebuild after the second world war. So it is covered by the idea of the law.

The Warsaw castle was built and destroyed a few times, and expanded and modified several times, too. Lots of architects involved there. Who do I email for permission to use an image of the castle? Who gets the 100€ for my selfie?

I know governments make silly laws, but what you seem to be describing is a specific intent is to create problems for an industry that accounts for ~9% of the EU's GDP. There's silly, and then there's losing-the-next-MEP-election silly.

Unfortunately it is not like what you read into it:
Bc my English is not that good I better give you some links to media news which will explain the thing much better than I do:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2015/06/25/why-the-eu-wants-to-stop-you-posting-your-vacation-photos-online/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/new-eu-proposal-could-make-sharing-photographs-of-copyrighted-landmarks-illegal-10341931.html

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/06/24/lawyers-call-plans-to-tighten-copyrights-rules-for-photographs-of-public-buidlings-absurd/


And the 100 Euro is kind of standard fine for breach of copyright in non serious cases. Now you only have to remember that every breach is fined on its own. So usually that sum is multiplied by 100s if not 1000s times ... It is common practice here with Music and Films which are being illegally published.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, that does provide clarity. And yikes, what a mess!

 

[zim]

It's clearly the architects fault for placing the building in such a position as to intrude into my art. I would simply ask politely for him/her to move it.

 

[zim]

What about the relationship between the (comissioned) architectural company and the owners of the building. The inference is that the designers retain influence over something they don't own ?

Would a private architect/owner really bother about this and of course the undoubted bad publicity such a claim would bring ?

Of course leaving the EU would solve the issue
Actually there may not be an EU for much longer so not really much point in worring about this! ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I really doubt that this has been thought thru, its so absurd.

 

[Luds34]

I really doubt that this has been thought thru, its so absurd.

You could probably rubber stamp this and apply it to a lot of various legislation applied over the years.

 

[sanj]

Certain laws are made never to be enforced.

 

[wsmith96]

So much for visiting EU countries....

 

[Aglet]

impressively daft legislation ideas come along every once in a far too often

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29846285

gotta keep wondering if the onion's out of control